4 ms·

> 2) If they can't actually compete and provide superior value to whatever managed offering Amazon can scrounge together, that's actually their fault. The sad-

> 2) If they can't actually compete and provide superior value to whatever managed offering Amazon can scrounge together, that's actually their fault. The sad-funny thing is that elastics hosted cloud offering is clearly superior to AWS’ hosted elasticsearch in pretty much all regards.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago
Exactly! I've used AWS' service, it's awful. Elastic's is better, and price is comparable or better in fact. But the point is they don't even have to compete on price if quality is superior! If I'm spending $100k/mo on my logging stack, and it's falling over frequently (which in AWS-land means multiple days of back and forth, opening tickets etc), I'd way rather pay $120k/mo for something that actually works.
- nuker 6y ago
  > If I'm spending $100k/mo on my logging stack, and it's falling over frequently I do the same and AWS ES works fine. I did try Elastic, performance was bad. They run it in containers internally!
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    Have you never been burned by those awful blue-green deployments? Of course, my company was willing to pay $100k/mo to log every SQL query in existence but wasn't willing to pay for AWS support (of course it would have required paying something like 1% of our TOTAL aws spend, not just aws elasticsearch, although we could have probably created a subaccount or something)...so maybe the experience is different if your tickets actually get answered. What was bad about performance in particular? You were just seeing less throughput per dollar spent or what?
    - nuker 6y ago
      Guys did benchmarks, AWS ES was as fast as hand rolled one, Elastic was few times slower. Searching in Kibana had substantial delay. Yea, I got bit once by one stuck blu-green. Root cause was zero free disk space, I now keep it at 25% And we do pay for tech support, im in luck here :)
devonkim 6y ago
It’s important to defend the product and the software ecosystem because so many people are confusing AWS’s offering with what the current state of the system is. It’s so bad that some people actually think that AWS _is_ the developer of Elasticsearch in many cases due to the Elastic-X branding similar to the I-Noun convention that Apple tried to defend against but fell short of squashing around the world. It’s also important to note that not defending one’s trademark sufficiently well means bad things in a court precedent where there needs to be reasonable, demonstrable evidence you’re not simply a patent / trademark troll sitting around waiting for someone juicy to sue rather than small fries.
jakear 6y ago
Seems like you know a thing or two about this — are all the reports I see about companies leaking tons and tons of data through improperly configured elastic search instances something using the aws’s offering would fix (or even ES’s hosted offering)? I don’t really know much about the field, but if AWs’s single contribution were to be “we made it really hard to screw up the configuration and leak all your data”, I’d consider that a very deserving cause.
- Xylakant 6y ago
  > Seems like you know a thing or two about this — are all the reports I see about companies leaking tons and tons of data through improperly configured elastic search instances something using the aws’s offering would fix (or even ES’s hosted offering) The primary issue that leads to that is that the stock open source elasticsearch distribution (APL licenced) does come with no security at all. It even used to be the case that even the most basic security was a plugin that required a paid license. That changed only after AWS released the opendistro set of plugins with a free plugin to add security - after that, elastic offered a basic (free as in beer, but still non-free as in freedom) license that would include security. Additionally, the early ES versions would bind to all IPs by default, so just starting the server would make it available from outside. If you weren't expecting that and no firewall was protecting you, your ES cluster would be available from the outside with not authentication. Both AWS and elastics hosted offering come with a configured security plugin, so that at least makes it harder to leak data. Obviously, even with authentication you can still leak credential or such.
  - jakear 6y ago
    Hm. So Elastic releases a neutered version of their product that leads to countless PII leaks, AWS provides a FOSS plug-in to fix that, then Elastic turns around and says AWS is leaching off their product and not contributing back to the community and implements a licensing change to prevent them from working together in the future? I can’t help but side with the AWS folks on this one —- I get wanting to make money, but insecure-by-default services are inexcusable, especially when it’s expected that they’ll contain PII.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago

Exactly! I've used AWS' service, it's awful. Elastic's is better, and price is comparable or better in fact. But the point is they don't even have to compete on price if quality is superior! If I'm spending $100k/mo on my logging stack, and it's falling over frequently (which in AWS-land means multiple days of back and forth, opening tickets etc), I'd way rather pay $120k/mo for something that actually works.

nuker 6y ago
> If I'm spending $100k/mo on my logging stack, and it's falling over frequently I do the same and AWS ES works fine. I did try Elastic, performance was bad. They run it in containers internally!
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  Have you never been burned by those awful blue-green deployments? Of course, my company was willing to pay $100k/mo to log every SQL query in existence but wasn't willing to pay for AWS support (of course it would have required paying something like 1% of our TOTAL aws spend, not just aws elasticsearch, although we could have probably created a subaccount or something)...so maybe the experience is different if your tickets actually get answered. What was bad about performance in particular? You were just seeing less throughput per dollar spent or what?
  - nuker 6y ago
    Guys did benchmarks, AWS ES was as fast as hand rolled one, Elastic was few times slower. Searching in Kibana had substantial delay. Yea, I got bit once by one stuck blu-green. Root cause was zero free disk space, I now keep it at 25% And we do pay for tech support, im in luck here :)

devonkim 6y ago

It’s important to defend the product and the software ecosystem because so many people are confusing AWS’s offering with what the current state of the system is. It’s so bad that some people actually think that AWS _is_ the developer of Elasticsearch in many cases due to the Elastic-X branding similar to the I-Noun convention that Apple tried to defend against but fell short of squashing around the world. It’s also important to note that not defending one’s trademark sufficiently well means bad things in a court precedent where there needs to be reasonable, demonstrable evidence you’re not simply a patent / trademark troll sitting around waiting for someone juicy to sue rather than small fries.

jakear 6y ago

Seems like you know a thing or two about this — are all the reports I see about companies leaking tons and tons of data through improperly configured elastic search instances something using the aws’s offering would fix (or even ES’s hosted offering)? I don’t really know much about the field, but if AWs’s single contribution were to be “we made it really hard to screw up the configuration and leak all your data”, I’d consider that a very deserving cause.

Xylakant 6y ago
> Seems like you know a thing or two about this — are all the reports I see about companies leaking tons and tons of data through improperly configured elastic search instances something using the aws’s offering would fix (or even ES’s hosted offering) The primary issue that leads to that is that the stock open source elasticsearch distribution (APL licenced) does come with no security at all. It even used to be the case that even the most basic security was a plugin that required a paid license. That changed only after AWS released the opendistro set of plugins with a free plugin to add security - after that, elastic offered a basic (free as in beer, but still non-free as in freedom) license that would include security. Additionally, the early ES versions would bind to all IPs by default, so just starting the server would make it available from outside. If you weren't expecting that and no firewall was protecting you, your ES cluster would be available from the outside with not authentication. Both AWS and elastics hosted offering come with a configured security plugin, so that at least makes it harder to leak data. Obviously, even with authentication you can still leak credential or such.
- jakear 6y ago
  Hm. So Elastic releases a neutered version of their product that leads to countless PII leaks, AWS provides a FOSS plug-in to fix that, then Elastic turns around and says AWS is leaching off their product and not contributing back to the community and implements a licensing change to prevent them from working together in the future? I can’t help but side with the AWS folks on this one —- I get wanting to make money, but insecure-by-default services are inexcusable, especially when it’s expected that they’ll contain PII.